QUESTION 3
Olga decided to go to Nandos for lunch. The line was long but when she finally made it up to the counter, the server asked, “What can I get for you?” to which Olga replied, “A double burger chicken teriyaki on honey bread.” The server questioned, “On wheat?’ “No, on honey” Olga replies. The server nods, grabs the bread and begins to make the burger, “Oh and cheese please.” “Ok”, replies the server. Olga watches the server as he makes the burger. Just as he’s about to put the hot chicken on the cheese, Olga says, “Oh no, I meant I wanted Swiss, swiss cheese. Could you please change that?” The server gives Olga a dirty look (Having already put the hot chicken on the cheese slices, “Next time, say what you mean.” He throws the burger out and makes her a new one. Use the communication process to describe what occurred (from a communication standpoint) in this exchange. Could this communication have been handled in a better way? Why or why not? If so, what could the communication process have looked like had Olga interacted with the server in a different way? (25 marks)
From a communication standpoint, this exchange can be described using the communication process model, which includes the following elements: sender, message, channel, receiver, feedback, and context.
1. Sender: Olga is the sender in this communication exchange as she initiated the conversation by placing an order at the counter.
2. Message: Olga's message was "A double burger chicken teriyaki on honey bread." However, she forgot to mention the type of cheese she wanted.
3. Channel: The channel of communication in this case was face-to-face interaction at the counter of Nandos.
4. Receiver: The server at the counter is the receiver who listened to Olga's order.
5. Feedback: The feedback in this case was the server nodding and confirming the order.
6. Context: The context of this communication is a busy Nandos restaurant where quick and accurate orders are expected.
In this exchange, the communication could have been handled in a better way if Olga had been more clear and specific in her initial order. By specifying that she wanted Swiss cheese from the beginning, the server could have avoided making the mistake of putting the hot chicken on the wrong cheese, making the process more efficient.
If Olga had interacted with the server in a different way, the communication process could have looked like this:
1. Sender: Olga would place her order by saying, "A double burger chicken teriyaki on honey bread with Swiss cheese, please."
2. Message: Olga's message would now include the specific type of cheese she wants, which is Swiss.
3. Channel: The channel of communication remains face-to-face at the counter.
4. Receiver: The server would listen to Olga's order that now includes the clear specification of Swiss cheese.
5. Feedback: The server would nod and confirm the order with the understanding that Olga wants Swiss cheese.
6. Context: The context of communication remains the same, a busy Nandos restaurant.
By being more clear and specific in her initial order, Olga would have effectively communicated her preference for Swiss cheese, eliminating the need for the server to throw away the burger and make a new one. This would have saved time, reduced waste, and improved the overall efficiency of the communication process.